You are here: / / DEFENDANT RESTAURANT-BAR DEMONSTRATED ITS EMPLOYEE DID NOT KNOW THE DRIVER...

DEFENDANT RESTAURANT-BAR DEMONSTRATED ITS EMPLOYEE DID NOT KNOW THE DRIVER WAS UNDER 21, RESTAURANT-BAR ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS DRAM SHOP ACT ACTION (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department determined the restaurant/bar’s (Hacienda’s) motion for summary judgment in this Dram Shop Act action was properly granted. Plaintiff, a passenger in a car driven by Behler, was injured when the driver struck a guardrail. The driver, who was under 21, had been served alcohol at Hacienda. General Obligations Law (GOL) 11-101 (the Dram Shop Act) prohibits serving alcohol to persons under 21. The Second Department held there is a knowledge element of GOL 11-101 and Hacienda demonstrated it’s employee did not know the driver was under 21:

In 1983, the Legislature supplemented the Dram Shop Act by adding General Obligation Law § 11-100, which applies to any provider unlawfully furnishing alcoholic beverages to or unlawfully assisting in procuring alcoholic beverages for minors. Pursuant to Alcoholic Beverage Control Law § 65(1), it is unlawful to furnish an alcoholic beverage to any “person, actually or apparently, under the age of twenty-one years” … . “[L]iability under General Obligations Law § 11-100 may be imposed only on a person who knowingly causes intoxication by furnishing alcohol to (or assisting in the procurement of alcohol for) persons known or reasonably believed to be underage. While [General Obligations Law § ] 11-101 does not explicitly refer to knowledge, that same requirement must be inferred because the legislative history makes plain that section 11-100 was intended to parallel the Dram Shop Act” … . …

Hacienda established through the submission of the deposition testimony of its bartender that it did not have knowledge or reason to believe that the driver was under 21 years of age when it served alcoholic beverages to him. Ferber v Olde Erie Brew Pub & Grill, LLC, 2018 NY Slip Op 03827, Second Dept 5-30-18

​NEGLIGENCE (DRAM SHOP ACT, DEFENDANT RESTAURANT-BAR DEMONSTRATED ITS EMPLOYEE DID NOT KNOW THE DRIVER WAS UNDER 21, RESTAURANT-BAR ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS DRAM SHOP ACT ACTION (SECOND DEPT))/DRAM SHOP ACT (DEFENDANT RESTAURANT-BAR DEMONSTRATED ITS EMPLOYEE DID NOT KNOW THE DRIVER WAS UNDER 21, RESTAURANT-BAR ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS DRAM SHOP ACT ACTION (SECOND DEPT))/TRAFFIC ACCIDENTS (DRAM SHOP ACT, DEFENDANT RESTAURANT-BAR DEMONSTRATED ITS EMPLOYEE DID NOT KNOW THE DRIVER WAS UNDER 21, RESTAURANT-BAR ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS DRAM SHOP ACT ACTION (SECOND DEPT))

You might also like
PETITIONERS SHOULD HAVE BEEN ALLOWED TO FILE LATE NOTICES OF CLAIM AGAINST THE COUNTY IN THIS GROUNDWATER CONTAMINATION CASE; THE COUNTY HAD TIMELY KNOWLEDGE OF THE ESSENTIAL FACTS AND THE COUNTY DID NOT DEMONSTRATE ANY PREJUDICE RESULTING FROM THE THREE-MONTH DELAY (SECOND DEPT).
THE CLIMATOLOGICAL DATA SUBMITTED BY DEFENDANT IN THIS ICE AND SNOW SLIP AND FALL CASE WAS NOT AUTHENTICATED; BECAUSE DEFENDANT DID NOT DEMONSTRATE THERE WAS A STORM IN PROGRESS AT THE TIME OF THE FALL, DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).
PLEA ALLOCUTION NEGATED AN ESSENTIAL ELEMENT OF THE CHARGED VIOLATION OF THE CORRECTION LAW, THE ISSUE SURVIVES THE FAILURE TO MOVE TO WITHDRAW THE PLEA AND THE WAIVER OF APPEAL (SECOND DEPT).
CONTRACT WAS ENFORCEABLE DESPITE PARTIES’ EXPECTATION A MORE FORMAL CONTRACT WOULD BE EXECUTED LATER, PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO CONFORM THE COMPLAINT TO THE PROOF AT TRIAL SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).
WARRANTLESS SEARCH OF DEFENDANT’S BACKPACK WAS NOT A VALID SEARCH INCIDENT TO ARREST, SEIZED WEAPON SHOULD HAVE BEEN SUPPRESSED (SECOND DEPT).
THE INSTRUCTION THAT MOTHER NOT “EXPOSE” THE CHILD TO ACTIVITIES NOT IN KEEPING WITH THE CHILD’S FAITH, WHICH IMPLICITLY REQUIRED THAT THE CHILD NOT BE “EXPOSED” TO MOTHER’S LGBTQ IDENTITY, IS NOT ENFORCEABLE (SECOND DEPT).
APPELLANT PHYSICIAN’S ASSISTANT HAD LEFT DEFENDANT-PRACTICE AT THE TIME THE MEDICAL MALPRACTICE ACTION WAS BROUGHT AGAINST THE PRACTICE; THE PLAINTIFFS DID NOT DEMONSTRATE APPELLANT HAD TIMELY NOTICE OF THE SUIT; THEREFORE THE RELATION-BACK DOCTRINE DID NOT SUPPORT THE MOTION TO ADD THE APPELLANT AS A DEFENDANT AFTER THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS HAD RUN (SECOND DEPT).
FATHER’S PETITION FOR SOLE CUSTODY SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED ABSENT A FULL HEARING (SECOND DEPT).

Categories

Sign Up for the Mailing List to Be Notified When the Site Is Updated.

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

Copyright © 2026 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

ARBITRATOR’S RULING WAS IRRATIONAL AND VIOLATED CPLR 1209 IN THIS NO-FAULT... DRAINAGE GRATE NEAR SOCCER FIELD DEEMED OPEN AND OBVIOUS, PLAINTIFF SOCCER PLAYER...